GIG H A RBOR VO T ES FOR T R A NSPA RENCY [4] SE AT T LE INCOME TA X A PPE A L E XPEC T ED [5] UNIONS GLOAT OV ER OREGON WAGE HIK E [6]
LIVINGLIBERTY A PUBLICATION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION | SEPTEMBER 2019
SCOTUS COULD HEAR FREEDOM FOUNDATION’S CASE TO BAN FORCED UNION REPRESENTATION
Electronic Service Requested
Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507
T
he same U.S. Supreme Court that last summer correctly affirmed in Janus v. AFSCME the right of government employees to keep their jobs despite refusing to participate in or financially support a labor union could soon be asked to ban one of the schemes frequently employed by labor leaders to undermine the ruling’s unequivocal intent. The outcome of the case could keep hundreds of dollars a year in the pockets of the workers who earn them rather than those of labor leaders and their allies in elected office. Among the most persistent — and persistently dishonest — arguments marshaled by government employee unions to preserve their monopoly over the public workforce and the billions of dollars that accompany it is the so-called “free-rider” argument. Because unions are often “required” under state law to represent even nonmembers, labor leaders disingenuously claim that a worker who reaps the benefit of a contract without paying at least a share of what it cost a union to negotiate it is getting something for nothing. Their preferred remedy for this perceived injustice, of course, is empowering unions to seize money from every single
By JEFF RHODES Managing Editor
worker in the bargaining unit — including those who’ve deliberately opted out of their designated union — in the form of dues or so-called “agency fees.” There is, of course, another answer. States could simply: n acknowledge the requirement to represent even nonmembers was a red herring all along, imposed at the urging of unions to justify deducting money from as many paychecks as possible; and, n recognize that laws allowing a union to speak for anyone other than its paid members are just as unconstitutional under Janus as those requiring nonmembers to pay “agency fees” in lieu of regular dues. A case the Supreme Court could soon be considering would do just that. In Miller v. Inslee, Katherine Miller, who works as a taxpayer-compensated home childcare provider in Washington state, is challenging laws that authorize SEIU 925 to represent her in contract negotiations even though she’s long since opted out of the union. Miller, represented by attorneys from the Freedom Foundation and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, argues a union with an exclusive bargaining agreement has a monopoly on providing workplace representation services to the employees it represents. Consequently, a represented employee cannot decide to forgo union representation, cannot negotiate his or her own wages or benefits directly with their employer and cannot choose to be represented by an attorney or alternate union. The Janus ruling exposes just how destructive such an arrangement is. Forced
See REPRESENT Page 4
VOLUME 30 | ISSUE 8
Our mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.
Publisher: Tom McCabe Editor: Jeff Rhodes
CONTACT Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 956-3482 FreedomFoundation.com
“Quote”
[2]
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CAT I ON OF T HE FREED OM FOU NDATION
CONTENTS PAGE 3
PAGE 4
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
LEADERSHIP MEMO
By JAMI LUND Gig Harbor the Latest Washington Jurisdiction to Embrace Transparency.
By TOM McCABE In Court or Out, We Keep Fighting Unions And They Keep Losing.
PAGE 5
What They Said & What They Meant
LITIGATING FREEDOM By JEFF RHODES Battle Over Seattle Income Tax Likely Head to the State Supreme Court.
Pie, meet sky
PAGES 6-7
~ of the month ~
Democratic Candidates for President Turn an AFSCME Forum into a Seven-Hour Orgy of Loony Ideas, Worthless Promises & Pledges of Undying Loyalty to Unions.
PAGE 8
OREGON UPDATE
By BOAZ DILLON SEIU 503 Beats Its Chest Over Wage Increases. By BOAZ DILLON AFL-CIO Aims to Restrict Self-Service Checkout.
“We need to address that both through legislation, but also through the bully pulpit that comes with being president of the United States ... Let’s be more specific. It has to be about banning right-to-work laws. That needs to happen.” KAMALA HARRIS
California Senator/ Candidate for President Vowing to use executive action to kill right-to-work legislation. April 27, 2019
Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the election of any elected official or candidate.
PAGE 9
PAGE 10
By JAMI LUND Dayton School District Innovation Repects Students’ Unique Needs.
By TIM ANAYA
FREEDOM IN ACTION
BEST OF THE BLOG
Reprinted from the Pacific Research Institute
By HANNAH COOKSEY Freedom Foundation Ends Union’s Stall Tactics.
The Next Battle in the Fight for Worker Freedom in California. By SEAN HIGGINS
Freedom Foundation’s Friends, Foes Weigh in On Our Actions.
PAGE 11
FREEDOM IN THE NEWS
Reprinted from the Washington Examiner
The Battle for Union Members Goes to the States.
PAGE 12
ACTION TIMELINE
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
3
MEMO
LIVING LIBERTY
AND THEY KEEP LOSING
U
nion attacks on the Freedom Foundation — and, by extension, our response to them — generally follow one of two tracks. First, there’s what could be called “non-lethal terrorism.” By definition, terrorism refers to premeditated actions taken by an individual or group in order to call attention to their grievances and intimidate perceived opponents into acquiescence. Most importantly, terrorism is never employed openly, nor it is directed toward actual combatants. The perpetrators hide in the shadows like cockroaches and routinely target civilians or third parties purely for shock value. It’s a cowardly business, and its practitioners undermine the credibility of their cause by their deeds. But the scourge continues precisely because it offends civilized human beings while inflaming the passions of other terrorists. No one’s accusing public-sector union leaders of strapping suicide vests on their members or wanting the Freedom Foundation staff and its supporters dead. But there are other ways to raise awareness and bully the opposition. n You can block traffic in the street and harass pedestrians on the sidewalk by staging noisy, often obscene protests of the Freedom Foundation’s annual banquets — which union agitators have done for the past six consecutive years. n You can create reprehensible, hate-filled mail pieces and robocalls, and inflict them on the innocent neighbors of your opponents — as unions have done on multiple occasions in the vicinity of my own home. n You can demonstrate and attempt to destroy the businesses of your opposition’s supporters, as unions have repeatedly done with Freedom Foundation board members. n You can make your professional disagreements personal by hiring operatives to stalk and physically intimidate members of the opposition. Numerous Freedom Foundation staffers have been the victim of these tactics over the years — and have never once responded in kind. Non-lethal terrorism, as maddening as it can be, is best dealt with by ignoring the source or, better yet, using it as motivation. At the Freedom Foundation, we understand — and, more importantly, so do our donors — what the unions never seem to grasp: If we weren’t inflicting damage, no one would be fighting back. The landscape is littered with individuals and organizations who recognize and even complain about union abuses. But no one lifts a finger or spends a dime trying to frighten their staff or bankrupt their supporters because they don’t represent the existential threat the Freedom Foundation does by backing its words with action. The other track taken by our union foes is legal action. And in this arena, the Freedom Foundation is far more predator than prey. Take, for example, the case chronicled on the front page of this month’s Living Liberty. In Miller v. Inslee, the Freedom Foundation’s lawyers are involved in a case we hope will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and do every bit as much damage to public-sector unions as Janus v. AFSCME
did last summer. Where the court in Janus ruled that forcing government By TOM McCABE, CEO employees to pay union dues or agency fees against their will is a violation of their Constitutional rights, Miller argues that forced representation — authorizing designated unions to represent even nonmembers in contract negotiations — is just as unconstitutional, and for the same reasons. Meanwhile, the Freedom Foundation filed an even more far-reaching lawsuit barely a month after Janus, arguing that if the ruling is interpreted as its authors intended, virtually every union membership contract in the country will be voided with the stroke of a pen. Belgau et al v. Inslee — like identical lawsuits subsequently filed in Oregon and California — notes that, under Janus, government employees who choose to pay dues are voluntarily waiving their First Amendment rights not to. And since rights must be knowingly waived, it follows that no union membership agreement signed before or after Janus could be valid unless the union can prove the signee was fully advised about the consequences of his or her actions beforehand. That provision, by the way, came directly from language suggested in an amicus brief submitted in support of the plaintiff in Janus by Freedom Foundation attorneys. In yet another landmark case, Freedom Foundation attorneys are battling with the governors of five Democrat-controlled states resisting an order from the Trump administration to resume enforcing a decades-old law requiring Medicaid payments be received directly by the caregiver they’re intended for rather than having the money diverted by the state, which then rakes off union dues that were never authorized by the worker. These are just a few of the 55 or so union-related court cases Freedom Foundation attorneys work on every day. But unlike the specious, time-consuming motions and counter-motions they file against us, our attorneys deal with real, substantive issues. And a ruling in our favor in any or all of these major cases, combined with Janus, could well be the torpedo that sends the corrupt government union battle ship to the bottom once and for all. While the unions are wasting someone else’s money filing nuisance lawsuits that never lead anywhere, our legal team continues to focus on the big issues. And winning.
LEADERSHIP
IN COURT OR OUT, WE KEEP FIGHTING UNIONS
“
While the unions are wasting someone else’s money filing nuisance lawsuits that never lead anywhere, our legal team continues to focus on the big issues. And winning.
”
D O S O M E T H I N G F O R F R E E D O M T O D AY
SUPPORT THE FIGHT!
The Freedom Foundation is the only organization on the West Coast that
takes on the hard fights. Every day we stand up to ensure freedom for future generations. Every gift is an investment in the future.
CALL (360) 956-3482, OR VISIT WWW.FREEDOMFOUNDATION.COM
4
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM GIG HARBOR THE LATEST TO EMBRACE TRANSPARENCY O n July 23, by 4-3 vote, Gig Harbor became the latest Washington jurisdiction to stand up for transparent government when its city council members voted to adopt a resolution titled, “Conducting Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiations in Public.” By its actions, the council recognized that union demands at the bargaining table directly impact services and the cost and accountability of government, and no that phase of the process should be conducted beyond the scrutiny of those who will ultimately be expected to fund it with their tax dollars. Predictably, a spokesman for Teamsters 117 testified during the city’s public hearing on the resolution – as did other organized labor operatives – all mouthing the same empty union taking points to explain how the public good is advanced when its business is conducted behind closed doors. Teamsters 117 also offered a series of not-so-subtle threats to make the city’s decision as costly as possible by stonewalling and filing frivolous legal challenges. Others whined that it was somehow unfair to unions’ self-interest to allow public employees and Gig Harbor residents to observe the deal-making between their city leadership team and the union representatives. Despite the intimidation tactics, four council members voted to put the public first. Transparent bargaining matters. Why? First, the self-interest of public employees has a government-empowered ability to change the priorities of your local county, city, school district, hospital district, transportation district, college or other special district. The employees’
interest in increasing employment costs, decreasing workloads and maximizing job security is at times in conflict with the greater public interest. Local boards – often composed of volunteers – that ultimately consider these agreements will seldom have time for a wider public consideration of the tradeoffs made at the bargaining table. Open bargaining allows broader public interests to have a slightly better chance of being considered alongside of the unions’ special interests. Second, when politicians are funded by unions in their election campaigns, ending secret bargaining avoids the appearance (or existence) of conflict of interest. When the governor receives
more than $5 million from the state’s public-sector unions, for example, the public should have the ability to verify that the public interest is being protected at the bargaining table. Third, observed bargaining improves engagement. When a parent group hoping to charter a bus for a school extracurricular activity for its students discovers the union contract prevents them from doing so, their confidence in government is eroded. When teachers are on strike – and even journalists are unable to figure out why – the school district is rightly subject to resentment. When taxpayers find they’re powerless to affect their government because key decisions happen without their knowledge,
By JAMI LUND, Senior Policy Analyst
their civic engagement wanes. Fourth, public employees themselves need to know how they’re being represented. The union industry has a monopoly on workplace advocacy that’s exempt from consumer protection laws. Workers should have the ability to see whether the concerns they wish to have addressed are being raised in bargaining and should know if their representatives are representing their positions in an effective manner. It won’t come from unions still heavily invested in secrecy and stealth, but Gig Harbor City Council deserves congratulations for showing the courage to make sure the public interest is not shut out as the union pursues its selfish agenda.
REPRESENT: SCOTUS ASKED TO CONSIDER UNION SCHEME Continued from page 1 representation, like forced dues, harms workers by infringing on their constitutionally protected rights of free association. But that’s not the only way public employees like Katherine Miller are harmed. Exclusive representation also threatens employees’ privacy by granting unions access to sensitive information, including their Social Security numbers. Among other abuses, this information is used to subject employees to an unwanted barrage of union membership solicitations and coercive tactics designed to seize union dues from employees’ wages. Then, too, most employees unionized under state labor laws have had little or no
say in choosing the exclusive bargaining representative. In some cases, the authorization vote was held years or decades before and only a relative handful of the affected workers cast ballots. It’s bad enough forcing workers to be represented officially by a union with whom they’ve already broken ranks. But it’s even worse when you consider how dubious the union’s claim to authority was in the first place. Lastly, exclusive representation allows a union to claim the support of all represented employees in its political speech and advocacy, placing the burden on employees who disagree with the union to affirmatively express their disagreement. Hopefully the Supreme Court recognizes
the seriousness of the issue and grants Katherine Miller’s request to have her appeal heard — and then strikes down exclusive representation as unconstitutional not just for childcare providers but all public employees. Caterwauling from organized labor notwithstanding, such an outcome would not end unions. On the contrary, it would introduce a little healthy competition to the workplace representation industry, free public employees from having to associate with labor unions against their will and allow workers to choose for themselves how to handle their workplace representation needs. Just as the Janus ruling — and the U.S. Constitution — direct.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
LITIGATING FREEDOM
5
What They
&
What They What she said: “The Freedom Foundation needs to be exposed.”
SEATTLE INCOME TAX BATTLE LIKELY HEADED TO STATE SUPREME COURT
O
pponents of Seattle’s scheme to impose an income tax on its high earners were handed a less-than-satisfying victory on July 15 when an appellate court ruling struck down the ordinance solely on constitutional grounds. The outcome leaves open the possibility of an appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court, which could be poised to overturn longstanding constitutional prohibitions against income taxes not only in Seattle but statewide. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed after the city attempted in July 2017 to impose a wealth tax of 2.25 percent on residents whose net annual income exceeds $250,000. Several different suits — including one whose plaintiffs were represented by the Freedom Foundation — were ultimately consolidated into one, and the tax was invalidated at the trial court level. The city of Seattle and the Economic Opportunity Institute — an uber-liberal policy organization granted permission to join the suit — appealed the decision. The unanimous ruling issued by a three-judge panel of the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 1, affirmed that, under the Washington State Constitution, income is considered intangible property, so a tax on income is a tax on property. And since property taxes must be applied uniformly, the proposed Seattle tax is unconstitutional because it treats taxpayers differently based on their respective incomes. But the ruling rejected two other arguments against the tax. Freedom Foundation attorneys had argued no city possesses the inherent authority to impose an income tax on its residents, and the state has not granted Seattle the specific authority to do so. But the appellate judges ruled that municipalities are empowered by the state to impose property taxes, and because income is considered property, a city has the authority to impose its own income tax. The Freedom Foundation also argued that, under the plain language of RCW 36.65.030, it’s illegal to impose a “tax on net earnings.” The court rejected Seattle’s preposterous expla-
By JEFF RHODES Managing Editor
nation that the tax was not on “net” income because it was calculated using the Form 1040 line the IRS calls “gross” income. But the judges ruled the applicable statute was invalid anyway because it violated the state’s single-subject rule, which is designed to prevent “log-rolling,” even though the entire bill is a single page long and overwhelmingly passed the House (94-1) and the Senate (43-5). “In order for Seattle’s income tax to be legal, the court would have to reject all three of the arguments against it,” said Freedom Foundation Chief Litigation Counsel Eric Stahlfeld. “By rejecting only two, they upheld the trial court ruling. But I suspect the people supporting Seattle’s income tax will see this as encouraging them to appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court. They’ve believed all along the case would be decided at that level, where they obviously believe they have enough votes to prevail.” Washington’s leftists have long sought to either replace or supplement the state’s existing sales and property tax structure with an income tax that could more easily be manipulated to reward their friends and punish those whose activities they consider unacceptable. But for generations they were thwarted by a Washington State Constitution that does not permit graduated income taxes, decades of court precedent affirming that interpretation and repeated rejections by the state’s voters of any attempt to adopt an income tax. The July 15 ruling, while a temporary win for income tax opponents, could well set the stage for a final showdown that forces Washington’s courts and its lawmakers — under the watchful eye of its voters — to decide whether the Constitution means what it says or only what the radical left wants it to say.
What she meant: “Apparently I see no hypocrisy in accusing the Freedom Foundation of having ulterior motives MARCIA NILLES Enumclaw, Wash. even as I’m Facebook post, posting my July 29, 2019 comments on the Facebook page of the Northwest Accountability Project, which lists no address, phone number or contact information for itself — let alone publicizes the fact that its funding comes entirely from the same unions that claim the Freedom Foundation is the one with something to hide. In our world, transparency is a oneway street.” n n n
He said: “Freedom for whom.” He meant: “It’s actually a rhetorical question. I know perfectly well the Freedom Foundation is in the business of helping union members opt out. I just don’t consider that freedom. By my RONALD STRICKLAND Vancouver, Wash. definition, Retired Welder/ ‘freedom’ Pipefitter Local 290 means Facebook post, having the July 29, 2019 ability to do what I think is best for you — mostly because it’s also best for me — rather than what you actually want.” n n n
He said: “All you need to know about the Freedom Foundation is you must be a multimillionaire to belong.” He meant: “And all you need to know to be a union hack like me CHARLES SARGENT is how to steal Kennewick, Wash. far more Retired Substance money from Abuse Counselor your co-work- SEIU 775 Member ers by preten- Facebook post July 28, 2019 ding you care about anything other funding our radical left-wing agenda.”
4
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
Pie, meet sky
“We need unions to organize the power and the voice of working people so they can get a fair break. You’ve got to join a union.” - TOM STEYER
Democratic candidates for president turn an AFSCME forum into a seven-hour orgy of loony ideas, worthless promises and pledges of undying loyalty to organized labor.
“I will make sure workers are empowered … and we will fight to overcome the Janus decision.” - Cory Booker
“One of the greatest opportunities for good, clean-energy union jobs is in the development of a green energy economy.” - JAY INSLEE
“Without AFSCME and without public employees, nothing functions in our country.” - Joe Biden
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
L
By JEFF RHODES Managing Editor
ike a king holding court, AFSCME President Lee Saun ders hosted a political forum I will stand up for in Las Vegas on Aug. 3 public service and for the during which each of the Democratic candidates best of what we see in for president were given government workers. 15 minutes to expound on their unique vision for transferring Government makes for the vast sums from the taxpayers into the strongest possible America.” pockets of public-sector unions. They didn’t disappoint. - Elizabeth Warren With seemingly dozens of clown acts to audition, the circus-like spectacle dragged on for seven and a half hours as each tried to top the others in their bid to be sole beneficiary of the millions of dollars of someone else’s money wielded by Saunders and the scions of the “My Government country’s other government employee unions. Will Be of The event was moderated by a pair of “journalists,” including one from the Huffington Post Workers, and another from the Nevada Independent, by Workers who dutifully obeyed instructions not to ask follow-up questions about how all and for the pie-in-the-sky programs would be Workers.” “I’m in solidarity paid for. They did, however, ask each canand in support - BERNIE didate whether they would support of the work a national law forcing states to SANDERS allow collective bargaining of their you do every day.” public workforce. All did, of course. - KAMALA HARRIS As for the candidates themselves, probably all favored abolishing rightto-work legislation and a half-dozen or so, including Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, said so. None, however, bothered to explain how that might be possible in light of the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME affirming the right to opt out of union participation is now Constitutionally protected. None mentioned the Freedom Foundation by name, but the organization’s presence was felt. When a childcare provider on videotape asked Amy Klobuchar what she would do to insulate AFSCME from “millionaire-backed organizations that want to bust unions,” the candidate clumsily changed the subject, clearly having no idea what the questioner was talking about. There was a lot of that. The candidates apparently made no distinction between private-sector unions and those representing government workers. They repeatedly demonized corporations and “obscene profits,” as though AFSCME had anything to do with either. For sheer buffoonery, however, the lowlight of the event came when one of the moderators — apparently seriously — asked Sanders whether there was anything good at all about the private sector. He grudgingly conceded there was, since the private sector creates “most of the wealth in this country.” Not all, just most. That Sanders, an unapologetic Socialist, believes government produces anything but well-to-do public servants is no surprise. “How about a Nor, unfortunately, is that fact that law that says a room full of government employees would give him and all the others you can’t be fired “We live who actually consider themselves without just cause? in a country of qualified to be president an uncritThe labor agenda can’t be ical pass to spout such unmitigatshared dreams. When ed nonsense. at the end of the line. unions are strong, Reproduced at left are a few It has to be the representative quotes from the America is strong.” candidates leaving little doubt who first thing we do.” would be pulling the strings in the - AMY unhappy event any one of these union - BILL KLOBUCHAR puppets ascended to the White House.
DEBLASIO
5
8
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
SEIU 503 BEATS CHEST OVER WAGE HIKES
I
n Oregon, SEIU 503 recently negotiated its first contract with the state Department of Administrative Services since the landmark 2018 U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Janus v. AFSCME that allows public employees to opt out of union dues and fees and still keep their job. In this new contract, the union pushed for a 10 to 15 percent pay raise and the state — represented almost exclusively by Democrats who’ve accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from public-sector unions — happily complied.
By BOAZ DILLON, Policy Analyst
Following the agreement, SEIU 503 leaders lauded the wage increase, describing it as a historic moment in the state’s history and gave credit to strong union support from its members in the wake of Janus. But let’s take a closer look. First, SEIU 503 has suffered catastrophic membership losses — more than a quarter of the state employees
Oregon Update
Highlighting the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.
it represents — in just a year since the Janus decision. Although the union claims its membership has been increasing, hard nunbers from the state say otherwise. Meanwhile, the pay raise would not have been possible had the Legislature not set aside $200 million for salary increases — no doubt as a life preserver to keep the Left’s struggling benefactors afloat at taxpayer expense. In reality, the wage increase is a self-serving effort by the union. State employees represented by SEIU 503 pay dues based on a percentage of their wages. When their pay increases, so do their dues deductions — thus increasing the union’s revenue, as well. The union is then able to funnel truckloads of Oregon workers’ dollars to various political campaigns and candidates. And rest assured, once elected these lawmakers don’t forget who helped get them into office. Together, they advocate for bigger government spending, which will then circle back to the union via dues deductions. SEIU has claimed the pay of state employees in Oregon is not competitive. However, when looking at their benefits package and total compensation, it’s the taxpayers who are treated unfairly. As usual, through double-speak and false statements, the union leaders credit the wage increase to member solidarity. In truth, it is primarily a result of state budgeting. Which, of course, its lackeys in the Legislature oversee. Nice work if you can get it.
AFL-CIO HOPES TO LIMIT SELF-SERVICE CHECKOUT
D
uring August, the AFL-CIO filed a ballot initiative that would restrict and limit the number of self-checkout kiosks in Oregon. If it succeeds, the so-called “Grocery Store Service and Community Protection Act” would force retailers across Oregon to downsize their self-service checkout areas to no more than two kiosks per store. Self-checkout kiosks often help cut back on time spent in a grocery store for those not getting many items. This leads to shorter lines and streamlines the process of customers paying for their groceries. For employers, they are beneficial in that they take up less space, are easy to clean and require less cash-handling due to an automated till. The union insists that by restricting a grocery store’s number of self-checkout kiosks it is, in turn, protecting workers — specifically women and minorities, who often work as cashiers. AFL-CIO President Tom Chamberlain said the measure is about jobs and compared it to Oregon banning self-service gas stations. The union also cites other reasons for limiting self-checkout, such as increasing social interactions in communities, reducing thefts and preventing teenage alcohol sales. However, the main push for this government regulation on the private sector is undoubtedly the union’s insatiable desire to collect dues. Several popular grocery store chains in Oregon are unionized, and restricting self-checkout would create an increase in union-represent-
By BOAZ DILLON, Policy Analyst
ed cashiers. While the union claims this would prevent employees from being replaced by machines, it might be advantageous to look at why automation is becoming more prevalent in the first place. Automating positions requiring minimal skill is nothing new anywhere in the country, but if it seems to be happening more commonly in Oregon than other regions, the unions have only themselves to blame. After all, they’re the ones who push for higher wages and burdensome labor regulations — all of which come at a cost. Union leaders assure their members the company can easily absorb the increases, and perhaps a few can. But in a free market economy, most employers are already operating on the narrowest margins possible in order to keep pace with the competition. When costs are increased to cover arbitrarily imposed pay raises, the business can only raise prices and hope consumers will take up the slack. When they don’t, the employer is forced to find other answers. Like reducing hours, hiring fewer employees and automating tasks that don’t require a human to perform them. One example is bringing in kiosks that can reduce the need for employees in the workplace — including union-represented cashiers. Not surprisingly, the union lead-
ers’ response is the heavy hand of government. Unfortunately for them, people can be regulated, but the forces of nature can’t. The laws of economics are no different than the laws of gravity. You can’t just ask the governor to sign a piece of paper suspending them, and the result of believing otherwise can be catastrophic. Sooner or later, the bill comes due. And when there are no profits to pay it, the business folds, throwing people out of work. Hopefully Oregon voters will see through the union lies this time and reject the AFL-CIO’s latest attempt to defy reality. In fact, self-serve kiosks aren’t the problem. They’re simply a logical reaction to the imposition of higher costs by people who have neither the capacity nor the inclination to worry about the consequences of their actions in the real world. Automation isn’t the problem. Unions are … and acquiescing to their latest demand will only ensure more of the same.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
9
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
BEST OF THE BLOG FROM THE FRONT: My name is Alyssa, and I joined SEIU 775 during a mandatory meeting to become a caregiver. They never took out dues until January, and then randomly started taking a second kind of dues. This bothered me becauseI didn’t understand it, and I wasn’t getting any answers by going to their office.
DAYTON SCHOOL DISTRICT INNOVATION RESPECTS EMPLOYEES’ UNIQUE NEEDS JULY 24, 2019
L
ike public employees in most Washington school districts, bus drivers, food service workers, office staff and classroom aides in the Dayton School District negotiate complicated terms of employment with the district leadership team. As a result, they are guaranteed rights, a grievance process, wage increases and progressive discipline in a written agreement with the district. Unlike most public school employees, however, they do all this without a union and pay no union dues. Through a formal process of making and honoring a binding agreement with the classified employees, the Dayton School District leadership team wisely includes employees in decision-making. A “Classified Employee Liaison Committee” conducts quarterly meetings and salary negotiation with management every year. To avoid the problem of one group of classified employees (such as bus drivers) dominating the others (secretaries, for example), the committee allows each employee type to select someone from its group to serve on the committee. No union dues are required because the meetings either occur during paid time or the employees serving on the committee are paid for hours beyond the contract day. The resulting document is a legally binding
By JAMI LUND, Senior Policy Analyst
“Classified Employees Operation Manual.” Union marketing suggests that without a formal union, all employees would be exploited, mistreated and lack workplace rights and protections. Workers are told that only by paying $800 or more per year to a union can the collective decision-making process be handled. The truth is that in most public workplaces, fellow employees — released from other duties and paid by their employer — are already negotiating the contracts, helping colleagues with grievances and monitoring discipline processes. The dirty secret of the government union business model is that most dues are not used for dayto-day union business but are sent off to bureaucracies in other cities to pay the salaries of people who may never set foot in the workplace. Not in Dayton. Dayton classified employees have a say in their terms of employment as a group and even as sub-groups, all without buying into unions’ scare-mongering and one-size-fits-all, industrial-revolution model of collective bargaining. For public employees looking to better control their workplace representation without the controversy, divisiveness and politics of a traditional union, Dayton’s example offers a compelling alternative.
FREEDOM FOUNDATION ENDS UNION’S STALLING JULY 18, 2019
P
ublic employees can opt out of union membership and dues payments — it’s their First Amendment right to do so. That’s exactly what Luis Granados, a public transit employee in California, had in mind this past April when he sent a letter to AFSCME 3993 requesting it terminate his membership and dues payments. He was clear that his cancelation was effective immediately. The union responded by stonewalling his request and piling on added requirements that were arbitrary and unnecessary. A few days after he sent his letter, Mr. Granados received a voicemail message from his union president, Sal Cruz, stating that the two would have to meet and complete more
By HANNAH COOKSEY, Paralegal
forms before AFSCME 3993 would process his opt-out request. Mr. Granados was surprised. His request was clear. More questioning was unnecessary. That’s when he enlisted the help of the Freedom Foundation, whose attorneys fired off a letter to Mr. Cruz demanding AFSCME 3993 process his opt-out request immediately and refund the money illegally deducted since April. AFSCME 3993 responded by complying with each of the requests. Thanks to Freedom Foundation, Mr. Granados received a copy of his dues authorization, his dues ceased and he received a refund.
They had mentioned not to speak to you guys cause it would cause issues for them. So I wasn’t going to, but when I went online and checked my paystub for my upcoming paycheck, I discovered they had taken out $145 in dues, $44 more in SEIU 775 NW dues and $102-something in “Voluntary Dues,” leaving me with not enough money to pay my bills or have enough for food and gas. I depend on that extra $100 a month. Then I remembered them warning us not to speak to the Freedom Foundation, so I looked you guys up and it seemed like you might be able to help me. At least I hope. ALYSSA n
n
n
I received a direct deposit from (my union) for two months of union dues, and on my (most recent) check and they didn’t take out the union dues. Thank you so much for your help in this matter. I really appreciate you!! JANET n
n
n
“I am a junior high teacher in California. I want to thank you for your website and the information I gleaned from it. I have decided to leave the teacher’s union due to ideological differences, and have discovered the Association of American Educators. I am very grateful. Keep up the good work! JAMIE
10
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
FREEDOM IN ACTION THE NEXT BATTLE IN THE FIGHT FOR WORKER FREEDOM IN CALIFORNIA By TIM ANAYA Reprinted from the PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE July 29, 2019
D
emocrats in Congress are pushing the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act HR-2474, which seeks to strip workers of long-held protections and bolster the coercive power of labor unions. As PRI has documented extensively, last year’s landmark Janus ruling has not stopped California’s public employee unions from continuing to siphon off dues from disaffected members. Our Kerry Jackson has written that, “Long before the Janus ruling was announced, California lawmakers, many of whom have been widely criticized as being wholly owned by the public employee unions, were busy introducing bills that are intended to allow unions to make an end run around the court.” Indeed, several measures were enacted in the run up to and immediate aftermath of Janus to make it as difficult as possible for Californians to exercise their right to opt-out of paying union dues and quit the union. It’s clear that Janus will not be the last lawsuit in the fight for worker freedom. Recently, our friends at the National Right
to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the efforts of the United Domestic Workers to “unlawfully restrict (their members who are homecare providers who receive Medi-Cal payments for serving the disabled) from stopping payments of union dues and fees.” According to the lawsuit, the UDW got many of its members to sign union membership cards that prohibit union members from stopping mandatory fee deductions except during a very narrow timeframe once a year. Recently on PRI’s “Next Round” podcast, Samuel Coleman of the Freedom Foundation told us that their “canvassers work across the state to visit workers where their union presence is most notable – at their workplace.” As the lawsuit shows, most public employees are confused about the process to quit the
union, which varies by union organization and by local. Many do not even know about the Janus decision or the rights available to them. Coleman said that when they talk to disaffected union members, “These unions have been very deceptive with how they’ve gone about informing public workers about the Janus decision. They make it sound like if you opt out, you’re going to lose everything. That’s just not true.” The message of the Freedom Foundation might be more receptive to UDW members because of the sheer cost of the union does. UDW membership is generally not making big money as many are simply being paid to provide home health care for a loved one. As Coleman says, “Most public workers we speak to, and who we explain this to, they’re happy to hear it. They’re happy to hear that they can save this money, that’s extra food on the table, that’s rent.” Given their low salaries, many home health care workers may welcome the opportunity to exercise their rights and keep several hundred dollars in their own pockets each year to spend on their families. As our Rowena Itchon recently wrote, “Annual savings from opting out of the union could multiply into significant amounts if saved and invested over 20 years or more. Unfortunately, it looks like it may take another favorable Supreme Court ruling for these workers to be able to finally take back control of their paychecks. Tim Anaya is the Pacific Research Institute’s communications director.
THE BATTLE FOR UNION MEMBERS GOES TO THE STATES By SEAN HIGGINS Reprinted from the WASHINGTON EXAMINER The Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME ruling, expected to be a major blow to public sector unions, has set off a battle at the state level between government unions and conservative groups over for workers’ hearts and minds. The ruling, which held that public sector workers could not be forced to join or otherwise financially support a union as a condition of employment, was expected to drain the labor movement of revenues as workers decided to opt-out of contributing, thereby hurting the Democratic Party and the political Left. So far, unions have managed to hold on to their members. They’ve been able to do so in part by working with friendly state legislatures to limit workers’ ability to exercise the rights they gained under Janus. Conservative state-level groups are trying to reverse those measures, often using tactics usually associated with unions, such as going door“Many states have enacted laws that back up the disinformation union officials give workers regarding Janus,” Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation, told the Washington Examiner. Legislation to counter the Janus ruling has been introduced or passed in California, Washington, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Lawsuits challenging the legislation or promoting workers’ rights under Janus have been filed in Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maine. Washington, for example, in April adopted a law that allows automatic dues deduction from public sector workers’ paychecks, limits circumstances in which workers can
end the deductions, and limits the unions’ legal liability for taking dues without permission. Legislation currently pending in the Massachusetts state House would do all of that, plus give union access to state facilities to organize and require workers to meet with them, among other provisions. California passed a law anticipating Janus in 2017 that prohibits state agencies from deterring workers from joining unions, thus making it difficult to inform workers of their rights to opt out. Thanks to such rules, it is likely that many public sector workers are unaware of their Janus rights. A June poll of 1,000 teachers conducted by the American Association of Educators, a nonprofit, non-union group, found that 77 percent of teachers weren’t even aware of the Janus decision, and that of those who had heard of it, a majority, 52 percent, were unaware of what the ruling meant. All this has created a lot of work for groups like the Freedom Foundation, which began as a nonprofit think tank but now devotes all of its efforts to reaching out to public-sector workers in Washington, Oregon and California. It has a $5 million budget and most of that goes into Janus-related efforts. It’s borrowing a page from the unions, too. “We set up a process of canvassing teams that would be outside city or country government buildings to let workers know before they went in for their orientation that they have rights and that they didn’t have to sign anything today,” said Ashley Varner, the foundation’s vice president of communications. “We did start making door-to-
door home visits to let them know you don’t have to be a member of a union.” Varner estimates that 50,000 workers have opted out in California, Washington and Oregon as result if their efforts. The foundation has also filed more than a dozen lawsuits in the three states to defend workers who claim their Janus rights are being violated. National Right To Work’s legal defense foundation has about two dozen such cases ongoing. For now, public sector unions appear to have taken little damage, but cracks are showing. For example, AFSCME, the defendant in the Janus case, reported in March Labor Department filings that its membership was 1.3 million, up by 27,000 from last year. The federal data shows, however, that union’s revenue fell in the same year, by $1.5 million to $197 million. Membership accounted for $181 million of that revenue, a figure down $4.5 million from the previous year. Thus, dues are declining despite a rise in members, suggesting that AFSCME may be having a hard time getting payments from all of them. AFSCME deputy general counsel Teague Paterson told the House Education and Labor Committee in June that membership has held up because workers see need for a union for economic security. “Our workers know that their union is their union.” Federal filings for AFSCME Council 31, the defendant in the Janus case, indicate more than 8,000 workers stopped paying in 2018, a 12 percent decline from the previous year. “Their tactics may succeed in keeping workers as dues-paying members for a time,” argues Maxford Nelsen, labor policy director of Freedom Foundation, “but they’re losing the hearts and minds of public employees who are running up against the practices they’ve instituted.”
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
11
FREEDOM IN THE NEWS ON LINE
July 24, 2019
ON LINE
July 16, 2019
Grant County’s Newspaper Since 1888
PITTSBURGH’S COSTLY AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE SICK LEAVE LAW
OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION LANDS BIG WAGE INCREASES IN NEW CONTRACT
“The Freedom Foundation, a Washington state think tank, evaluated what it said were 10 of the most important and widely cited studies from both supporters and opponents of mandatory paid sick leave. Not only did it conclude there were consistent “moderate negative consequences for affected businesses … such laws do not produce the benefits promised by supporters.”
“The court case that led to the decision was backed by anti-union group the Freedom Foundation, which has continued to go after unions. Aaron Withe, Freedom Foundation’s Oregon director, said the new contract is self-serving. SEIU and other government unions’ goal is to ‘raise taxes and bloat government,” adding with that bloated government comes more government jobs and more money for unions.
ONLINE
July 3, 2019
Trump Rule That Prohibits States From Automatically Collecting Dues From Home-Care Workers Goes Into Effect Friday “The implementation of the rule could come as a huge hit to unions. “If unions lose the ability to collect dues via payroll deductions, caregivers will have much more control over whether they choose to financially support a union or not,” said Maxford Nelsen, director of labor policy for the Freedom Foundation, a conservative group in Olympia, Wash.”
IN PRINT
July 17, 2019
CALIFORNIA UNION CONTRACTS TARGETED IN NEW LAWSUIT CHALLENGING HOW WORKERS QUIT PAYING DUES “The Freedom Foundation, a Washington state organization, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation this week filed a class action lawsuit against the United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930 and California State Controller Betty Yee in the District Court for the Southern District of California ... the suit alleges UDW violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by continuing to collect dues despite the plaintiff requesting removal from membership in the union.”
Ever wonder why public-sector unions bombard their members with warnings about the Freedom Foundation?
They Fear the Truth. Ever wonder why no other organization provokes this kind of reaction from unions?
We Tell It Better Than They Do.
12
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
ACTION TIMELINE SPOTLIGHTING SOME OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION’S NOTEWORTHY MILESTONES DURING THE PAST MONTH
are invalid based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last summer in Janus v. AFSCME.
JULY 24 By 4-3 vote of its city council, Gig Harbor becomes the latest Washington jurisdiction to stand up for transparent government by adopting a resolution pledging to make future collective bargaining sessions with the unions representing city emloyees public. The Freedom Foundation has worked with numerous Washington jurisdictions over the past several years, having drafted a model transparency resolution and by offering pro bono legal representatives when such measures are challenges in court. Predictably, a spokesman for Teamsters 117 testified during the city’s public hearing on the resolution – as did other organized labor operatives – all mouthing the same empty union taking points to explain how the public good is advanced when its business is conducted behind closed doors. JULY 26 A pair of California public employees represented by the Freedom Foundation file suit challenging whether SEIU 721 can force its “members” to remain in the fold against their wishes until the union’s current collective bargaining agreement with their employer expires. In both cases, SEIU 721 ultimately relies on the CBA to force Wilkins and Aguirre to continue to pay, which in Aguirre’s case is for almost two more years. The CBA provisions, and the state law that authorizes the provisions, Freedom Foundation attorneys argue,
AUGUST 2 The Freedom Foundation announces former Arkansas governor and current Fox News host Mike Huckabee will be the keynote speaker it the annual banquet for the the organization’s Oregon operation. The event is scheduled for Nov. 9 at the Salem (Ore.) Convention Center. Huckabee will be the second Fox News personality to headline a Freedom Foundation event this fall, joining Laura Ingraham, who will appear at its principal banquet on Sept. 21 at the Bellevue (Wash.) Hyatt Regency. AUGUST 6 Lois McMahan, former two-term member of Washington’s House of Representatives from the 26th District and mother of Juliana and Jeremy McMahan, who worked for the Freedom Foundation during its formative days in the early 1990s, dies after a lengthy illness. Among her signature accomplishments in the Legislature was her work to tighten up sentencuing guidelines for sex offenders. A rememberance will be held at a location to be determined in September.
MIKE NEARMAN APPOINTED TO DIRECT OREGON OPERATIONS
A
Staff Reports
lmost from the day the Freedom Foundation opened its Oregon office in 2014, State Rep. Mike Nearman (R-Independence) has been among its most stalwart supporters. On Aug. 5, the relationship became official when he assumed his new role as the organization’s Oregon director. “I’m proud to be working with the Freedom Foundation,” Nearman said. “This organization provides a daily reminder that the rights of workers versus the unions that claim to support them are as precious as any other civil right. It’s an honor to be asked to help uphold and defend them.” Nearman replaces Aaron Withe, who has been promoted to head the Freedom Foundation’s national operations. “We couldn’t ask for a better fit,” Withe said. “Mike lives and breathes Oregon, and his passion for the rights of its residents is like a force of nature. He’s been a longtime friend to the Freedom Foundation, and in this new position we intend to make excellent use of both his insight and his talent for getting things done.” Nearman, whose legislative term expires in 2021, said he fully intends to maintain his seat in the House of Representatives as he directs the Freedom Foundation’s Oregon activities.
TWO NIGHTS. TWO LEGENDS.
Nationally syndicated radio host & Fox News commentator
LAURA INGRAHAM will be the keynote speaker for the Freedom Foundation’s annual banquet on
Former Arkansas Governor & Fox News Host
MIKE HUCKABEE will be the keynote speaker for the annual banquet of the Freedom Foundation’s Oregon Office on
Nov. 9, 2019,
at the Salem (Ore.) Convention Center
Sept. 21, 2019,
at the Bellevue (Wash.) Hyatt Regency. For ticket info for both events, call
(360))956-3482,
or visit our website: www.freedomfoundation.com
ONE GREAT ORGANIZATION.